What needs to be removed to make high level dungeons work?

[RadiantPhoenix]

'Unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord'

If you want to make sure something comes through, you have to pick a kind of creature, at which point you're extremely unlikely to get the person you're looking for.

[Avoraciopoctules]

had I really wanted to get into a high level dungeon I probably would have created an Escherian Dungeon. (Note that is entirely possible on the Astral Plane.)

What's an Escherian Dungeon?

As in "could have been designed by M.C. Escher," so it would have weird spacial distortions.

[Leress]

So someone wants to make a dungeon based off the movie Cube 2: Hypercube.

[K]

'Unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord'

If you want to make sure something comes through, you have to pick a kind of creature, at which point you're extremely unlikely to get the person you're looking for.

I am extremely amused that the section he quoted actually proves him wrong.


And here is the text to Vision:

This spell functions like legend lore, except that it works more quickly but produces some strain on you. You pose a question about some person, place, or object, then cast the spell. If the person or object is at hand or if you are in the place in question, you receive a vision about it by succeeding on a caster level check (1d20 +1 per caster level; maximum +25) against DC 20. If only detailed information on the person, place, or object is known, the DC is 25, and the information gained is incomplete. If only rumors are known, the DC is 30, and the information gained is vague.

It doesn't say anything about getting to actually see the object in your vision AND you only get that vision if it's "at hand," meaning you could walk over and touch it.

Sooooo..... yeh. He is totally wrong. Vision will not help you at all with circumventing the limitations on Locate Object.

He should come back when he has objections that aren't based on prejudices that have no factual support.

[Sashi]

If the person or object is at hand or if you are in the place in question, you receive a vision about it by succeeding on a caster level check (1d20 +1 per caster level; maximum +25) against DC 20.

Is it just me, or is it completely hilarious that a) the caster level check modifier has a cap on it and b) it's 6 points higher than what puts you off the RNG.

[Swordslinger]

'Unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord'

A unique being isn't simply any creature with a name. It's something like the Tarrasque.

It's why it's described as "Deities and Unique beings."

Unless you're trying to tell me D&D has a bunch of non-unique nameless deities so that extra clarification was needed. :roll:

Your counter argument only further displays how much of a waste of time it is to argue with people here.

Come on dude.

[K]

Unless you're trying to tell me D&D has a bunch of non-unique nameless deities so that extra clarification was needed.

No, we are trying to tell you that the wording means you can't gate in "a deity" to go kill your enemies even if there are ones in the setting within the HD limits. You also can't gate in unique beings like "Bob the Balor," though you can gate in "a balor." Arguably, it also won't let you call templated beings.

It's a rule designed to prevent abuses like calling in enemies to fight for you and grabbing things you've met that had awesome equipment or class levels.

Gate also only works on extraplanar creatures.

[Aharon]

@Escherian Dungeons
In the Dragon Compendium, there's a more detailed explanation of that kind of thing. They copy articles from Dragon #17 and 38, from 1978 and 1980, respectively.

@Gate
Actually, I think that part of Swordslinger's argument is correct, "unique" doesn't mean having a name in D&D terms. The game differentiates between "unique", which means creatures like that 4-armed gargoyle in the Tomb of Horrors and the Tarrasque, of which only one instance is supposed to exist. and "specific" or "particular", which means a creature with a specific name. A corrobating argument:
The Planar Binding Line has a similar effect to the Gate spell, and allows calling specific creatures if you know their names. Usually, similar spells of higher levels have at least the same functionality and are more powerful than those of lower levels (Fireball>Meteor Swarm, Alter Self>Polymorph>Polymorph any Object, Control Winds>Control Weather...). Thus, it would be strange if the 8th level Greater Planar Binding allowed you to call specific creatures (as it indeed does) and the 9th level Gate didn't.

This still requires DM adjucation, unfortunately, since the core rules don't clarify what a proper name is and how you can research it. Even the sourcebook focused on this kind of stuff, Tome of Magic, doesn't explicitly say wether a Truename is supposed to be the same thing as a Proper Name, although it seems logical to assume so. If it is, using this tactic gets costly very fast and only works in campaigns with downtime, since researching a Truename takes target's HD/2 weeks and HD*1000 gp.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If you're unsure about the meaning, read the next paragraph:
"If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures..."

So either you can't open a gate to known individuals who are not deities or whatever your definition of 'unique' is, *at all*, or you just can't compel them to come through.

[Aharon]

@RadiantPhoenix
I'm not unsure about the meaning. I'm sure that Swordslinger is right, and you can call known individuals, and compel them to come through.

The paragraph that begins with the line you quoted is about controlling creatures. I agree that it may be argued that you can't control known individuals, since there's no mention of them in this paragraph, but it is very clear that you can call them and they are compelled to step through:

"By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling."

This doesn't leave any room for interpretation, IMO.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If your conditions are sufficiently specific that the gate will definitely target your particular enemy, then you are specifying a unique creature, because if you are not specifying a unique creature, there is (are? I'm not quite sure which one is grammatically correct) more than one creature that can be called by the gate, and thus you are not assured of getting your target.

I don't understand why you don't understand this.

[Aharon]

Bob the Balor is not a unique creature, because there are also Jim, Tim and Sam the Balors.

Bob the Tarrasque and Demogorgon the Prince of Demons are unique creatures, because there aren't Jim, Tim and Sam the Tarrasques/Princes of Demons.

[violence in the media]

Bob the Balor is not a unique creature, because there are also Jim, Tim and Sam the Balors.

Bob the Tarrasque and Demogorgon the Prince of Demons are unique creatures, because there aren't Jim, Tim and Sam the Tarrasques/Princes of Demons.

Wasn't there a Spelljammer world that was like a whole planet of Tarrasques?

[Aharon]

Never played Spelljammer, so I didn't know and went by the MM fluff (The legendary Tarrasque - fortunately, only one exists - ...).

Obviously, if in your campaign, there's Bob and Sam the Tarrasque, or a whole planet of them, you can call Bob with Gate.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Bob the Balor is not a unique creature, because there are also Jim, Tim and Sam the Balors.

Bob the Tarrasque and Demogorgon the Prince of Demons are unique creatures, because there aren't Jim, Tim and Sam the Tarrasques/Princes of Demons.

If you specify 'a balor', then, provided there is more than one balor, then you are not attempting to call a unique creature, even though whichever balor you summon is unique.

If, on the other hand, you specify 'bob the balor', you are attempting to call a unique creature.

You can't summon a Tarrasque either way, because it's not extraplanar; nor can you summon the necromancer lord, because he's not extraplanar either.

[Swordslinger]

You can't summon a Tarrasque either way, because it's not extraplanar; nor can you summon the necromancer lord, because he's not extraplanar either.

They are if you're casting it from the Abyss. Extraplanar just means that they're on a plane that isn't the one you're on.

[RadiantPhoenix]

You're right; I hadn't thought of that.

[Ice9]

Is it just me, or is it completely hilarious that a) the caster level check modifier has a cap on it and b) it's 6 points higher than what puts you off the RNG.

I found that pretty amusing as well.

[K]

Bob the Balor is not a unique creature, because there are also Jim, Tim and Sam the Balors.

Bob the Tarrasque and Demogorgon the Prince of Demons are unique creatures, because there aren't Jim, Tim and Sam the Tarrasques/Princes of Demons.

Wasn't there a Spelljammer world that was like a whole planet of Tarrasques?

Yes, there was. "Unique creature" doesn't mean anything in DnD, and never has.

So you have to default to common language. In that case, you can't use Gate to call a specific thing, just a member of a monster race. It's the one valid interpretation that's not broken out of the possible interpretations, so I don't know why people want to argue for the broken option.

[tzor]

In the original 1E version of gate it was certainly possible for a specifically named being to decide to send a minion in his place. He could also go a one round about face and just go back through the gate.

[talozin]

In the original 1E version of gate it was certainly possible for a specifically named being to decide to send a minion in his place. He could also go a one round about face and just go back through the gate.

Yeah, I remember the flavor text talking about how summoning Asmodeus to fight Bahamut will basically net you a "fvck this, I'm outta here." Too bad about the aging, suckers!

[Username17]

Yes, there was. "Unique creature" doesn't mean anything in DnD, and never has.

So you have to default to common language. In that case, you can't use Gate to call a specific thing, just a member of a monster race. It's the one valid interpretation that's not broken out of the possible interpretations, so I don't know why people want to argue for the broken option.

Because the spell specifically distinguishes a "particular individual" and a "deity or unique being". The Free Vacation is extremely explicit in the spell. Gods and Demon Lords don't have to hand roll taquitos on th negative energy plane if they do't want to, every other kind of BBEG does.

Gate is a broken spell. It's 9th level and lives right next door to Shapechange. In order to play the game at the level those spells are available you have to produce a bunch of house rules or otherwise come to détente with the players. You can't solve these problems with dodgy and overly restrictive interpretations of the spells, and there's no reason to try. Remember that the spell already lets you pop out two Efreet and juice them for two wishes at caster level 20 in the round you cast it.

-Username17

[K]

Yes, there was. "Unique creature" doesn't mean anything in DnD, and never has.

So you have to default to common language. In that case, you can't use Gate to call a specific thing, just a member of a monster race. It's the one valid interpretation that's not broken out of the possible interpretations, so I don't know why people want to argue for the broken option.

Because the spell specifically distinguishes a "particular individual" and a "deity or unique being". The Free Vacation is extremely explicit in the spell. Gods and Demon Lords don't have to hand roll taquitos on th negative energy plane if they do't want to, every other kind of BBEG does.

Gate is a broken spell. It's 9th level and lives right next door to Shapechange. In order to play the game at the level those spells are available you have to produce a bunch of house rules or otherwise come to détente with the players. You can't solve these problems with dodgy and overly restrictive interpretations of the spells, and there's no reason to try. Remember that the spell already lets you pop out two Efreet and juice them for two wishes at caster level 20 in the round you cast it.

-Username17

I wouldn't call it "extremely explicit." At best, I could say it's "implied."

It is "extremely poorly written."

I mean, what does "particular individual" mean in context of DnD since that term isn't used anywhere else in the rules? What does "kind of creature" or "unique creature" mean? What does "extraplanar creature" mean, since literally every creature ever is extraplanar to some place and can get the [Extraplanar] tag by being on the wrong plane (why even say that if you didn't mean to exclude some creatures and include a specfic subset of creatures?).

Heck, what does it even mean by needing to "name" the creature? Do you need it's True Name, one of it's names, a description.....? Could I ask for a "dancing girl" and get one since it's a "kind of creature?" If someone gave you a false name, would that make them immune? Would a nickname work? If there are two creatures anywhere in the infinite planes that share the same name, which one does it bring?

Who the fuck knows? The only thing the spell "explicitly" does is open a door from one place to the other. The rest is always going to be houseruled and up to interpretation. Choosing the interpretation that breaks the game is an option, but not your best one as a DM.

Personally, I'd go with the 2e definition of "extraplanar" and the 1e definition of "unique" just assume it only works on creatures native to planes other than Prime who aren't demon lords, gods, named characters, and the like.

[Aharon]

I haven't thought this through fully, so there may be things I overlooked:
I think you can actually use this feature of the Planar Binding/Gate Line to explain why low level adventurers are still needed. Dimensional Lock blocks Gate, so important guys whose names are widely known should have it up 24/7 to prevent their enemies raping them. Nice side effect: They can't travel around as fast themselves, so they have to leave less important stuff to lower-level adventurers. This fits nicely with the society described in some other thread, where there are high-level heroes that just care for their immediate surroundings.

[CCarter]

I think the term "unique individual" is a legacy rule, maybe you could say its a function call to an invalid object (or something like that).

2E monsters had a FREQUENCY entry that says "FREQUENCY: Unique" if there is only one; entities like that got priviledged treatment for a handful of spells e.g. in 2E time stop didn't affect unique creatures.